Oscars

Eddie Murphy has bailed on his Oscar hosting gig, a day after Brett Ratner stepped down as producer of the Feb. 26 telecast.

Ratner resigned amid criticism he provoked with the use of a gay slur during an interview. Murphy was Ratner’s choice to host Hollywood’s annual self-serving gala.

Murphy said in a news release from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that he had looked forward to playing host at the Oscars but that he understands and supports “each party’s decision with regard to a change of producers.”

So was it a wise decision on Murphy’s part — or a dumb career move? Are you happy or sad to see him go? And perhaps most importantly, who would you like to see as his replacement?

So are two heads really better than one? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences apparently thinks so. It has announced that Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin will co-host the Oscar telecast next March.

“We think the team of Steve and Alec are the perfect pair of hosts for the Oscars,” said producers Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic in a press release. “Steve will bring the experience of having hosted the show in the past and Alec will be a completely fresh personality for this event.”

“I don’t play the banjo but I’m thrilled to be hosting the Oscars — it’s the opportunity of a lifetime,” said Baldwin.

Martin hosted the 73rd and 75th Academy Awards shows and received generally positive reviews. Baldwin has proven he can bring the funny via his Emmy-winning performance on “30 Rock” and multiple hosting stints on “Saturday Night Live.” His wry persona would seem to be a good match for Martin.

The choice of dual hosts seems like an obvious ploy to stir up buzz and pique curiosity. The show, of course, could use a shake-up after enduring years of declining ratings. The Oscar organizers made big news earlier by announcing that the nomination field for Best Picture will be expanded from five to 10 entrants — a move apparently intended to bring more audience favorites into the fold.

The Oscar producers promised a lot of big changes for this year’s telecast, the main one being deploying a song-and-dance guy (Hugh Jackman) instead of a yuck-it-up comedian, as is tradition.

But is different necessarily better?

I liked the idea of having past winners come out to present individual tributes to the nominees — until it got late in the night and the show was running long. And with apologies to Peter Gabriel, I liked the quick-hit medley of the tunes up for Best Original Song.

But what did you think? Did you enjoy the song-and-dance numbers? Would you have preferred more comedy? What changes would you make if you were an Oscar producer?

It culminated a wondrous journey for “Slumdog,” a low-budget, feel-good story about a poor teen who rises to fame on India’s version of the game show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”

“We had no stars. We had no power or muscle. … But we had a script that inspired mad love in everyone who read it,” said “Slumdog” producer Christian Colson during a revamped, if not entirely enthralling Oscar telecast smoothly guided by first-time host Hugh Jackman.

Was it just me, or did you feel like Oscar was on sedatives last night?

Like a lot of big-time film fans, I was thrilled by the timing of the resolution to the writers’ strike. It meant we could all let out a deep cleansing breath and be treated to the awards show we so adore. With that in mind, you would think the event would be one big, raucous,Â joyous celebration.

Instead it turned out to be one of the dullestÂ Academy AwardsÂ shows in years.

Yes, it did contain some veryÂ engaging moments.Â Loved it when host Jon Stewart invited Marketa Irglova back onto the stage after she was played off by the orchestra during her acceptance speech for best song (“Falling Slowly”). That had to be a first, right? And upset winner Tilda SwintonÂ had us smilingÂ with her comments about how the Oscar statuette looked a lot like her agent (he head and buttocks are the same). Also, the adorably offbeat screenwriter Diablo Cody (“Juno”) delivered a sweet and touching thank-you that ended with tears.

Overall, however, the show seemed to be suffering from a post-strike hangover. It lacked jaw-dropping surprises. It wasÂ practically drowning in film-clip montages.Â It wasÂ woefully short on laugh-out-loud moments.Â Most of all,Â it simply failed to provide a great deal of emotional oomph.

Sadly, one of problems seemed to be the host himself. I’m a huge Jon Stewart fan and I thought heÂ merited at least a B+Â two years ago in his Oscar debut. But last night, he wasn’t the Jon Stewart we know and love. HeÂ was too gentle, too genialÂ and too, well …Â sedate. Where were the sharp barbs?Â Where were the uproarious pre-taped segments? And where, for that matter, was his buddy Stephen Colbert?

Stewart, at times, seemed more intent on cozying up to all the pretty celebs in the room (“Does this town need a hug?”) than actually entertaining the millions of us planted on our couches.

I experienced my first out-loud Oscar cheer this year, ironically, to me and those who know me, when “La Vie en Rose” won for makeup, of all things; normally, Scarlett, I wouldn’t give a damn, but Marion Cotillard’s transformation to Edith Piaf , from youth through premature aging was just too impressive.

Normally I am silent during Oscars telecasts, unless I have money riding on them or my picks are public, in which case getting ‘em right is a matter of saving face vs. losing face.
-
I might make a snarky remark, say about the black tent/toga worn by indie icon Tilda Swinton – but her delightful enthusiasm and candor in accepting the supporting-actress gold for “Michael Clayton” made be want to keep my snark to myself.

I had a similar inclination to snark at the fur trim covering Penelope Cruz’s decolletage – shameful waste in the mind of every healthy all-American male.

But I wanted to at least aim for the higher road, especially when I found myself shedding my cynicism and cheering for my best-actress favorite, Cotillard, when she, too, picked up the gold.

I was actually happy. It was a stunning portrayal in what was otherwise an uneven downer. And it upset the “sure thing” in this year’s competition: Julie Christie - also excellent, – for “Away From Her.”

Upsets always give cheer, especially when they’re about an award going to the most deserving.

The favorite to win for original screenplay for “Juno,” the little movie that could, the former stripper was wearing some sort of thin, shimmery leopard-like frock cut so high she held it closed as she walked up to the stage to receive her award.

Add the fact that she was covered with tattoos and her look was all about “weird” or “odd,” “inappropriate” or, simply, “out of place,” or so the snarker would be tempted to say.

And then Diablo Cody spoke, radiating sincerity: And she ended her speech with the clincher, letting the tears finally spill as she walked off: “And most of all I’d like to thank my family for loving me exactly as I am.”

Even though the show was only 20 minutes or so over the three-hour mark,Â it felt more bloated than Eddie Murphy in “Norbit.” And Â strangely stale and limp. And who do we blame? Stewart? The writers? The winners, who failed to provide much emotional oomph?

After getting off to a good start, Stewart was servicable, but didn’t exactly set the world on fire. Can you think of one joke — or one segment — that made you fall off the couch laughing? I didn’t think so. And whyÂ didn’t he immerse himself inÂ the kind ofÂ pre-taped bits that often are the best thing about an Oscar show (Maybe the length of the writers strike prevented it).

And, oh those 80th anniversary montages! Not only are they, in many cases, worthless filler, theyÂ often underscored how boring the show was. Example:Â We see a clip of Cuba Gooding Jr. joyously, exuberantly accepting his award inÂ a vintage clip and it leaves us wondering where thatÂ kind of excitement is tonight.Â …